3 ms·

Why do you draw a distinction between the two? (To be clear, I'm not trying to defend victimless 'crimes' here; rather, I don't understand why you would distin

Why do you draw a distinction between the two? (To be clear, I'm not trying to defend victimless 'crimes' here; rather, I don't understand why you would distinguish between someone stealing from you at gunpoint vs. raiding your home while you're out). Edited: With the obvious exception that the mugger is endangering your life by pointing a loaded weapon at you. Is that the only difference?

WalterBright 11y ago
I think someone pointing a gun at you and threatening your life is a big difference. Don't you?
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  I think it makes it worse, because of the physical endangerment involved. But in both cases the theft of property is morally equivalent to the thief enslaving me to produce the stolen items for him. If it took me a day to work to earn the money to buy my phone, and you steal it, you've just stolen a day of my life.
  - alextgordon 11y ago
    Consider that if this hypothetical thief were to be put under house arrest instead of in prison, the state could save enough money to buy you a new phone.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      Except that the taxpayers would then be forced to pay reparations for the criminal behaviour of another. A.k.a. moral hazard. Why not do both? Put him under house arrest, and compel him to buy me a new phone.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    How about we start with no jail time for victimless crimes? If you don't endanger anyone but yourself, we don't pursue criminal charges. I'm thinking drug users and people who drink unpasteurized milk.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      I'm 100% in agreement with you there. The entire idea of a 'victimless crime' is without merit.
      - newjersey 11y ago
        We can then extend the logic to ridiculous cases where the law is clearly "wrong". http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/thanks-to-the-music-industry-it-is-illegal-to-make-private-copies-of-music-again/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/thanks-to-the-mus...

WalterBright 11y ago

I think someone pointing a gun at you and threatening your life is a big difference. Don't you?

duncan_bayne 11y ago
I think it makes it worse, because of the physical endangerment involved. But in both cases the theft of property is morally equivalent to the thief enslaving me to produce the stolen items for him. If it took me a day to work to earn the money to buy my phone, and you steal it, you've just stolen a day of my life.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  Consider that if this hypothetical thief were to be put under house arrest instead of in prison, the state could save enough money to buy you a new phone.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    Except that the taxpayers would then be forced to pay reparations for the criminal behaviour of another. A.k.a. moral hazard. Why not do both? Put him under house arrest, and compel him to buy me a new phone.
- newjersey 11y ago
  How about we start with no jail time for victimless crimes? If you don't endanger anyone but yourself, we don't pursue criminal charges. I'm thinking drug users and people who drink unpasteurized milk.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    I'm 100% in agreement with you there. The entire idea of a 'victimless crime' is without merit.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      We can then extend the logic to ridiculous cases where the law is clearly "wrong". http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/thanks-to-the-music-industry-it-is-illegal-to-make-private-copies-of-music-again/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/thanks-to-the-mus...